1. Visualizing the nano-scale: The rhetoric of digital microscopy

2. – Chris Cummings – Doctoral Student, CRDM, North Carolina State University – Graduate Research Assistant to Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement – PI David M. Berube, NCSU

3. Envisioning the nanoscale December 29, 2009: 50 th anniversary of “There’s plenty of room at the bottom” “In the year 2000, when they look back at this age they will wonder why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction” (Feynman, 1959). Public understanding and awareness remain low (see Berube et al. 2010 for full literature review).

4. Divide between expert and inexpert spheres “Rhetors attempt to use popular terminology. Most often the audience gets carnival facts, banal awareness, storybook imagery, military simile, and sports references. Metaphors are complex language devices and poorly wielded by inexperienced communicators. The rhetors of nanotechnology end up receiving a failing grade for effort and product” – David Berube (2004). “These stories provide little information helpful for the general reader in understanding nanotechnology or, worse yet, confuse reality and fiction to the point where readers can’t tell the difference between Crichton’s evil, utterly fictional nanoswarms in Prey and the very real and harmless nanoparticles we breath every day.” – Nathan Tinker (2008) “When exciting developments in nanotech are communicated to the public, the news is often accompanied by a striking visual image” (Toumey, 2009).

5. Visual means of informing Visual representations of nanoparticles and nanotechnologies are highly rhetorical, seemingly paradoxical artifacts and should be interrogated to note the possible deficiencies of nano imagery on furthering the public understanding and awareness of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

6. Seeing that which cannot be seen “Imagery processing bears a non-arbitrary correspondence to the thing being represented” (MacInnis & Price, 1987) Chief exigence: a nanometer is 10 -9 m or 0.000000001m Nanomaterials are typically defined between 1-100nm in any dimension Visible light waves are range between 400-750nm.

7. Digitally “seeing” nano 1981: Scanning-tunneling microscopes– employ electron waves rather than light waves to “see” materials smaller than light waves.

8. Digitally “seeing” nano Alters the process of visualization into a process of rhetorical invention using digital means. Rhetorical choices function to magnify or maximize, reveal or conceal, and simplify or complicate the creation of scientific “fact” “Black boxed” by digital architecture– model and simulate virtual forms of physical structures using digital measures of time and distance.

9. Producing a nano image: Haptic Vision Stage I: STM sweeps across two-dimensions of the electron cloud Quantifies distance through measures of time. Data are logged as time signatures of electron cycles.

10. Producing a nano image: Haptic Vision Stage II: Points on the planar surface are redefined by electron cycle time lengths to produce a gray-scale grid of scaled values.

11. Producing a nano image: Haptic Vision Stage III: The cell corners are assigned a new value to alter the grayscale grid to provide a sense of dimensionality.

12. Producing a nano image: Haptic Vision Stage IV: cells are assigned gradient values to provide for a sense of perspective and shadow.

13. Producing a nano image: Haptic Vision Stage V: cells are swathed in colors to make the nano image more familiar.

14. Implications The attempt to visualize nano is an attempt at making an object out of something that cannot be seen as ‘object’. Reliance on visual approximation of archetypal metaphors (Osborn, 1967). Arbitrary uses of color do not seek to convey epistemic logics, rather they function to encourage affective response.

15. Implications Blending of episteme, doxa, and endoxa: reinforces that scientific knowledge is reliant upon social conditions. Change in the convention of “seeing” bears heavy implications on epistemic and institutional trust.

16. Diagnostic and Recommendations This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement. Thank you!